10 Things to Read About EU Democracy Promotion

The EU’s democracy promotion has drawn a reasonable amount of attention from scholars. Plenty of research has been developed about the how the EU promotes democracy abroad: what type of democracy it promotes, what its priorities are, what autocratic forces may also be at play, etc. Here, we provide a list of 10 articles about the EU’s democracy promotion practices that will help our readers grasp the key components thereof.

Del Biondo investigates why there are differences in the sanctions applied by the EU to African states. Using a comparative qualitative analysis of 17 Human Rights violations in 9 sub-Saharan countries, the author adds do the debate between the sanctions’ normative focus and strategic focus. Contrary to what a less careful analysis would suggest, Del Biondo finds that sanctions are not applied regardless of donor interests or the recipient country’s performance. With data from 2000 to 2011, it is the first multiple case and updated analysis on the topic.

In this paper, Tordjman provides us with a detailed description of the European Endowment for Democracy (EED). Based upon direct observation and interviews of EU and local officials, we learn how this mechanism is used in the Caucasus, and how its ambiguous nature may be the very thing that makes it successful, by making smaller operations possible.

Sharshenova and Crawford answer the questions of if, and how, China undermines the West’s attempts and democratic promotion in Central Asia. Unlike what common sense might suggest, they find that China does not undermine democracy promotion directly, but rather by its own example of autocratic success.

Based upon interviews and EU documents collected between 2008 and 2013, Mouhib analyses if structural changes (like the “Arab Spring” movements) in autocratic countries produce any significant change in the EU’s application of the EIDHR or if, on the on the other hand, it is the EU’s own institutional dynamics that determine eventual change.

The article focuses on the financial transfers from the EU to the Western Balkans between 1991 and 2010, and finds that the promotion of democracy is only the third of the EU’s priorities. Thus, Grimm and Mathis argue that, although the EU was active in the post war conflit of the Western Balkans, it needs to make a bigger effort on democracy promotion. The great contribution of this article is that it establishes a data base of financial transfers that did not exist before.

In an analysis of the European Commission’s opinions and reports, Haukenes and Freyberg-Inan find that the EU’s democracy promotion is not unbiased as to which model of democracy it promotes. Rather, the EU seems to constantly promote Lijphart’s consensus model, even in unfavourable conditions.

This paper provides an innovative view of the EU’s democracy promotion as it uses a Foucauldian analysis of the EIDHR to answer a question concerning if the EU promotes any particular democratic vision. It is found that the EU does promote specific types of freedoms, namely a neoliberal society.

Delcour and Wolczuk analyse Russia’s reaction to political changes in Georgia and the Ukraine, and find that, even though the EU and the US had a relatively small impact, Russia responded harshly. However, it seems that this harsh response has actually driven Georgia and the Ukraine away from Russia.

In this paper, using survey data from 11 EU countries, the authors investigate how socioeconomic background and political alignment affect citizen’s support for democracy promotion. To do this, the authors take into account not only person specific variables, but also country specific variables.

Using research conducted in Belarus between 2009 and 2013, this article examines the recent policy changes of the EU towards Belarus, and attempts to determine if these are responsible for the societal changes in the country. Specifically, it argues that that the EU’s change to a more technocratic approach may have had positive effects in terms of democracy promotion.